CSX Transp., Inc. v. Maynard’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

4 state decisions

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 5 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “"The United States Supreme Court defined the scope of judicial review of jury verdicts in FELA cases in Lavender v. Kurn, 327 U.S. 645, 653 , 66 S.Ct. 740, 744 , 90 L.Ed. 916 (1946): "`Only when there is a complete absence of probative facts to support the conclusion reached does a reversible error appear. But where, as here, there is an evidentiary basis for the jury's verdict, the jury is free to discard or disbelieve whatever facts are inconsistent with its conclusion. And the appellate court's function is exhausted when the evidentiary basis becomes apparent, it being immaterial that the court might draw a contrary inference or feel that another conclusion is more reasonable.' See also Lindsey v. Louisville & N.R.R., 775 F.2d 1322, 1325 (5th Cir.1985), CSX Transportation, Inc. v. Bryant, 589 So.2d 706 (Ala.1991)."”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 703 So. 2d 892 - CSX Transp., Inc. v. Long

2. “"The discovery rule developed to avoid mechanical application of statutes of limitations. Thus, we do not read Kubrick as setting an inflexible rule. Instead, we think that the Court intended the discovery rule to be applied in differing fact situations to effectuate the rationale behind the rule. . . . When a plaintiff may be charged with awareness that his injury is connected to some cause should depend on factors including how many possible causes exist and whether medical advice suggests an erroneous causal connection or otherwise lays to rest a plaintiff's suspicion regarding what caused his injury."”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 742 So. 2d 155 - Kindred v. Burlington Northern Railroad Co.

3. “"`In order to establish liability under the FELA, the employee must submit sufficient evidence from which the jury could reasonably infer that the employer was negligent. Additionally, there must be sufficient evidence from which the jury could reasonably infer that the employer's negligence was the cause of the claimed injury or death. Rogers v. Missouri Pacific R.R., 352 U.S. 500 , 77 S.Ct. 443 , 1 L.Ed.2d 493 , (1957)....'"”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 703 So. 2d 892 - CSX Transp., Inc. v. Long